Preview
Filed 13 October 25 P3:10
Chris Daniel - District Clerk
Harris Coun!
ED101) 017789763
By: deandra mosley
CAUSE NO. 2010-23663
CROSSTEX ENERGY SERVICES, L.P. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff,
Vv HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
PRO PLUS, INC., EFC VALVE &
CONTROLS, LLC, ENERVEN
COMPRESSION SERVICES, LLC,
LAMONS GASKET COMPANY, INC.,
GERALD N. STEINDORFF, STEINDORFF
PROPERTIES, LLC, STEINDORFF
RANCH, LLC, AND G&A STONE
VILLAGE INVESTMENTS, LP.
Defendants. 55" JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ UNTIMELY FILED
MOTION TO INSPECT WINSCOTT STATION AND JOINT MOTION TO SEVER
COMES NOW, Plaintiff CROSSTEX ENERGY SERVICES, L-P., filing this Response
to Defendants’ (Gerald Steindorff, Steindorff Properties, LLC, Steindorff Ranch, LLC, and G&A
Stone Village Investments, LP.) Untimely Filed Joint Motion To Sever, and Defendants’ (Gerald
Steindorff and Pro Plus) Untimely Filed Motion to Inspect Winscott Station, respectfully
showing the court the following:
I, FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The undersigned spoke to defense counsel Patrick Bates about various matters by phone
at 2:30 p.m. on Friday, October 18, 2013. Among other things, plaintiff's counsel mentioned he
would be out of town in Nevada the entire next week on another case. Shortly thereafter, Mr.
Bates then filed Defendants’ Joint Motion to Sever that same afternoon, noticing the hearing for
October 28, 2013. Rather than serving the motion via hand delivery, email, or fax, Mr. Bates
served the Motion by certified mail, which was not received by plaintiff's counsel’s office until
Monday afternoon, October 21, 2013. (Contrasted with Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Net Worth,
set for hearing October 28, 2013, hand delivered to defense counsel on October 16, 2013).
Mr. Bates then filed Defendants’ Motion to Inspect Winscott Station on October 23,
2013, serving the motion via facsimile at approximately 4:30 p.m., and while not formally
noticing the Motion for hearing, included the Motion in the same document as Defendants’
Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Net Worth set for hearing October 28, 2013.
Harris County Local Rule 3.3.3 requires motions be set “at least 10 days from filing,
except on leave of court.” TRCP 21a provides an additional three days notice be given when a
motion is served by mail or facsimile. Plaintiff's counsel left Houston on a 6:10 a.m. flight
October 21, 2013 and did not return to the office from Nevada until earlier today, October 25,
2013. If the court is inclined to seriously consider granting either of Defendants’ Motions then
plaintiff respectfully asks the court to reset the motions for hearing, with proper notice, to allow
plaintiff a reasonable time to brief the issues and more fully respond.
II. ARGUMENT
Motion to Sever
Generally, while a claim against a party may be severed and proceeded with separately
under Rule 41 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and an appellate court will not reverse a
trial court's order severing a claim unless the trial court abused its discretion, such discretion is
not unbounded. Guar. Fed. Sav. Bank vy. Horseshoe Op. Co., 793 S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tex. 1990).
A claim is properly severable if (1) the controversy involves more than one cause
of action, (2) the severed claim is one that would be the proper subject of a
lawsuit if independently asserted, and (3) the severed claim is not so interwoven
with the remaining action that they involve the same facts and issues. F.F-P.
Operating Partners v. Duenez, 237 S.W.3d 680, 693 (Tex. 2007, orig. proc.).
The Texas Supreme Court has “explained that avoiding prejudice, doing justice, and
increasing convenience are the controlling reasons to allow a severance.” Id. In a case where
“the same facts and issues would be litigated in a separate suit”, the trial court abuses its
discretion in severing the claim. See, /.F.P. Operating Partners y. Duenez, 237 S.W.3d 680,
693-4 (Tex. 2007, orig. proc.).
The alleged fraudulent transfer of assets amongst Gerald Steindorff’s companies from
himself personally, and/or defendant Pro Plus, Inc., is part and parcel of a series of grossly
negligent, dishonest and/or fraudulent acts that Steindorff has engaged in this case, and for which
plaintiff seeks punitive and exemplary damages. While multiple examples of Steindorff’s
fraudulent and/or grossly negligent acts are set out in Plaintiff's Second Amended Petition filed
November 15, 2012, that pleading obviously does not address additional acts revealed in
Steindorff’s court ordered 4" and 5" depositions taken February 25, 2013 and March 26, 2013,
respectively. Tellingly, Plaintiffs counsel has not found find even one single appellate opinion
in a case which initially included a cause of action under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer
Act, Tex. Bus. Com. Code Ann. § 24.005, et seq., that was severed from the underlying case.
Motion to Inspect Winscott station
The incident made the basis of this suit occurred at Crosstex’ Godley station, located
approximately 65 miles southwest of Dallas, Texas, on November 15, 2008. While the Godley
and Winscott stations are approximately 10 miles apart, they are very different stations in design
and function. Crosstex’ Winscott natural gas compressor station is a much larger “gathering”
station which obtains and treats gas directly from natural gas wells in the field; Godley is a
smaller “booster” station which increases the pipeline pressure but does not directly treat the gas.
All parties’ were previously allowed, long ago, along with their chosen experts, to visit
and inspect Godley station. Up until the Steindorff defendants’ Motion, no defendant had ever
even requested to inspect Winscott station. All parties have already designated experts,
produced reports, with the deposition of the Steindorff defendants’ main liability expert,
electrical engineer Richard Bonyata, scheduled to be concluded Tuesday, October 29, 2013.
Allowing another trip for all parties’ experts to inspect Winscott station at this late date would be
unduly burdensome, costly, and unnecessary.
Ill. Prayer
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff CROSSTEX ENERGY
SERVICES, L-P., respectfully requests the Court deny Defendants’ (Gerald Steindorff,
Steindorff Properties, LLC, Steindorff Ranch, LLC, and G&A Stone Village Investments, LP.)
Untimely Filed Joint Motion To Sever, deny Defendants’(Gerald Steindorff and Pro Plus)
Untimely Filed Motion to Inspect Winscott Station, or in the alternative, reset the motions for
hearing, with proper notice, to allow plaintiff a reasonable time to brief the issues and more fully
respond, and grant any other relief at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff is justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
DONATO, MINX, BROWN & POOL, P.C.
By:
Brook F. finx; SBN: 00789905
Clifton J. dams; SBN: 00784545
3200 Southwest Freeway, Suite 2300
Houston, Texas 77027
Telephone: (713) 877-1112
Facsimile: (713) 877-1138
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
CROSSTEX ENERGY SERVICES, L.P.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on opposing
counsel by agreement and in accord with the TRCP on this 25" day of October, 2013:
Randy L. Fairless Robert J. Filteau
Johanson & Fairless, L.L.P. 2626 South Loop West, Suite 426
1456 First Colony Blvd. Houston, Texas 77054
Sugar Land, Texas 77479
Michael L. Snyder
Dale Jefferson McDonald Hopkins LLC
Martin Disiere Jefferson & Wisdom, LLP 600 Superior Ave East, Ste 1200
808 Travis, Suite 1800 Cleveland, OH 44114
Houston, Texas 77002
Kelly E. Cook
Rene S. Rogers Law Offices of Kelly E. Cook
Tucker, Taunton, Snyder & Slade, P.C. 4101 Washington Avenue
10370 Richmond Avenue, Suite 1400 Houston, Texas 77007
Houston, Texas 77042
ifton J. McAdams
Preview
Filed 13 October 25 P3:10 Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris Coun! ED101) 017789763 By: deandra mosley CAUSE NO. 2010-23663 CROSSTEX ENERGY SERVICES, L.P. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, Vv HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS PRO PLUS, INC., EFC VALVE & CONTROLS, LLC, ENERVEN COMPRESSION SERVICES, LLC, LAMONS GASKET COMPANY, INC., GERALD N. STEINDORFF, STEINDORFF PROPERTIES, LLC, STEINDORFF RANCH, LLC, AND G&A STONE VILLAGE INVESTMENTS, LP. Defendants. 55" JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ UNTIMELY FILED MOTION TO INSPECT WINSCOTT STATION AND JOINT MOTION TO SEVER COMES NOW, Plaintiff CROSSTEX ENERGY SERVICES, L-P., filing this Response to Defendants’ (Gerald Steindorff, Steindorff Properties, LLC, Steindorff Ranch, LLC, and G&A Stone Village Investments, LP.) Untimely Filed Joint Motion To Sever, and Defendants’ (Gerald Steindorff and Pro Plus) Untimely Filed Motion to Inspect Winscott Station, respectfully showing the court the following: I, FACTUAL BACKGROUND The undersigned spoke to defense counsel Patrick Bates about various matters by phone at 2:30 p.m. on Friday, October 18, 2013. Among other things, plaintiff's counsel mentioned he would be out of town in Nevada the entire next week on another case. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Bates then filed Defendants’ Joint Motion to Sever that same afternoon, noticing the hearing for October 28, 2013. Rather than serving the motion via hand delivery, email, or fax, Mr. Bates served the Motion by certified mail, which was not received by plaintiff's counsel’s office until Monday afternoon, October 21, 2013. (Contrasted with Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Net Worth, set for hearing October 28, 2013, hand delivered to defense counsel on October 16, 2013). Mr. Bates then filed Defendants’ Motion to Inspect Winscott Station on October 23, 2013, serving the motion via facsimile at approximately 4:30 p.m., and while not formally noticing the Motion for hearing, included the Motion in the same document as Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Net Worth set for hearing October 28, 2013. Harris County Local Rule 3.3.3 requires motions be set “at least 10 days from filing, except on leave of court.” TRCP 21a provides an additional three days notice be given when a motion is served by mail or facsimile. Plaintiff's counsel left Houston on a 6:10 a.m. flight October 21, 2013 and did not return to the office from Nevada until earlier today, October 25, 2013. If the court is inclined to seriously consider granting either of Defendants’ Motions then plaintiff respectfully asks the court to reset the motions for hearing, with proper notice, to allow plaintiff a reasonable time to brief the issues and more fully respond. II. ARGUMENT Motion to Sever Generally, while a claim against a party may be severed and proceeded with separately under Rule 41 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and an appellate court will not reverse a trial court's order severing a claim unless the trial court abused its discretion, such discretion is not unbounded. Guar. Fed. Sav. Bank vy. Horseshoe Op. Co., 793 S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tex. 1990). A claim is properly severable if (1) the controversy involves more than one cause of action, (2) the severed claim is one that would be the proper subject of a lawsuit if independently asserted, and (3) the severed claim is not so interwoven with the remaining action that they involve the same facts and issues. F.F-P. Operating Partners v. Duenez, 237 S.W.3d 680, 693 (Tex. 2007, orig. proc.). The Texas Supreme Court has “explained that avoiding prejudice, doing justice, and increasing convenience are the controlling reasons to allow a severance.” Id. In a case where “the same facts and issues would be litigated in a separate suit”, the trial court abuses its discretion in severing the claim. See, /.F.P. Operating Partners y. Duenez, 237 S.W.3d 680, 693-4 (Tex. 2007, orig. proc.). The alleged fraudulent transfer of assets amongst Gerald Steindorff’s companies from himself personally, and/or defendant Pro Plus, Inc., is part and parcel of a series of grossly negligent, dishonest and/or fraudulent acts that Steindorff has engaged in this case, and for which plaintiff seeks punitive and exemplary damages. While multiple examples of Steindorff’s fraudulent and/or grossly negligent acts are set out in Plaintiff's Second Amended Petition filed November 15, 2012, that pleading obviously does not address additional acts revealed in Steindorff’s court ordered 4" and 5" depositions taken February 25, 2013 and March 26, 2013, respectively. Tellingly, Plaintiffs counsel has not found find even one single appellate opinion in a case which initially included a cause of action under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Tex. Bus. Com. Code Ann. § 24.005, et seq., that was severed from the underlying case. Motion to Inspect Winscott station The incident made the basis of this suit occurred at Crosstex’ Godley station, located approximately 65 miles southwest of Dallas, Texas, on November 15, 2008. While the Godley and Winscott stations are approximately 10 miles apart, they are very different stations in design and function. Crosstex’ Winscott natural gas compressor station is a much larger “gathering” station which obtains and treats gas directly from natural gas wells in the field; Godley is a smaller “booster” station which increases the pipeline pressure but does not directly treat the gas. All parties’ were previously allowed, long ago, along with their chosen experts, to visit and inspect Godley station. Up until the Steindorff defendants’ Motion, no defendant had ever even requested to inspect Winscott station. All parties have already designated experts, produced reports, with the deposition of the Steindorff defendants’ main liability expert, electrical engineer Richard Bonyata, scheduled to be concluded Tuesday, October 29, 2013. Allowing another trip for all parties’ experts to inspect Winscott station at this late date would be unduly burdensome, costly, and unnecessary. Ill. Prayer WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff CROSSTEX ENERGY SERVICES, L-P., respectfully requests the Court deny Defendants’ (Gerald Steindorff, Steindorff Properties, LLC, Steindorff Ranch, LLC, and G&A Stone Village Investments, LP.) Untimely Filed Joint Motion To Sever, deny Defendants’(Gerald Steindorff and Pro Plus) Untimely Filed Motion to Inspect Winscott Station, or in the alternative, reset the motions for hearing, with proper notice, to allow plaintiff a reasonable time to brief the issues and more fully respond, and grant any other relief at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff is justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, DONATO, MINX, BROWN & POOL, P.C. By: Brook F. finx; SBN: 00789905 Clifton J. dams; SBN: 00784545 3200 Southwest Freeway, Suite 2300 Houston, Texas 77027 Telephone: (713) 877-1112 Facsimile: (713) 877-1138 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF CROSSTEX ENERGY SERVICES, L.P. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on opposing counsel by agreement and in accord with the TRCP on this 25" day of October, 2013: Randy L. Fairless Robert J. Filteau Johanson & Fairless, L.L.P. 2626 South Loop West, Suite 426 1456 First Colony Blvd. Houston, Texas 77054 Sugar Land, Texas 77479 Michael L. Snyder Dale Jefferson McDonald Hopkins LLC Martin Disiere Jefferson & Wisdom, LLP 600 Superior Ave East, Ste 1200 808 Travis, Suite 1800 Cleveland, OH 44114 Houston, Texas 77002 Kelly E. Cook Rene S. Rogers Law Offices of Kelly E. Cook Tucker, Taunton, Snyder & Slade, P.C. 4101 Washington Avenue 10370 Richmond Avenue, Suite 1400 Houston, Texas 77007 Houston, Texas 77042 ifton J. McAdams